Subject: Re: [boost] [Fit]Â formal review - should we propose some parts to Boost.Config/Boost.Core
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-03-05 21:21:40
I want to start a new sub-thread about some of the concerns of Steven
Watanabe about whether some of the contents of this library fits better
in Boost.Config. In particular the file boost/fit/returns.hpp.
Others could be considered also as function.hpp, lambda.hpp and
lift.hpp, as the macros are there to workaround some missing language
features, but those are much more specialized (Boost.Core?)
John M., Peter D. what do you think?
Steven, were you thinking on other parts of the library?
Paul, it is normal that you added those utilities in your library, as
Boost doesn't provides them, however them can be included as sub-modules
of other libraries.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk